Christianity

[Djevv]

What? You are going to change the meaning of a word to suit your argument?

Omnipotence, from the Latin: Omni Potens: "all power".

Every definition I have ever seen defines it as having unlimited power.

Your definition?

If God can't control the actions of something he is, by definition, not omnipotent.

Chooses not to. I didn't say can't.This is the only way free will can work.

Am I interested in dictionary definitions? Lol. I'm talking about the nature of God here! Surely He defines what omnipotence is! Such a being would still be able to create a universe such as ours.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Chooses not to. I didn't say can't.This is the only way free will can work.

But even if he chooses not to, he is making himself not omnipotent! Unless of course he can rescind that ol' free will thing as you allude to. Then how can we be said to have free will if it can be taken away on the whim of God?

Am I interested in dictionary definitions? Lol. I'm talking about the nature of God here! Surely He defines what omnipotence is! Such a being would still be able to create a universe such as ours.

What?
Omnipotence is an English word evolved from a Latin root. It has a clear definition....even your God (Big Brother?) can't change that.

 

[Djevv]

I point out one of the more vile expressions of Christianity (it requires that belief to draw the conclusions) and you call it Christian bashing? No, I am pointing out that dogmatically following an interpretation of scripture (or any ideology) can have nasty repurcussions. Something that fits perfectly into the discussions on this thread.

Instead of pointing out why I'm wrong, or why the pastor is out of line according to Chrisitian doctrine, you call it cheap point scoring, use the No True Scotsman defence and claim that such a discussion shouldn't occur at the present.

The main issue I have with the guy is lack of love, lack of compassion and incredibly poor timing. I think he is also being presumptuous. None of these are sound doctrine. No true scotsman here!

As for Christian bashing, thats exactly what it is and you know it!

 

[Rosy]

Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is wrong with you?

I'm happy to elaborate.

 

[Djevv]

But even if he chooses not to, he is making himself not omnipotent! Unless of course he can rescind that ol' free will thing as you allude to. Then how can we be said to have free will if it can be taken away on the whim of God?

So there are some things omnipotent beings can't do, eh? Free will exists as long as it is free to do as it wills.

What?
Omnipotence is an English word evolved from a Latin root. It has a clear definition....even your God (Big Brother?) can't change that.

You still don't get it.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

So there are some things omnipotent beings can't do, eh? Free will exists as long as it is free to do as it wills.

An omnipotent God and free will are mutually exclusive. If you can't see why, I am not sure how to spell it out any clearer.

You still don't get it.

I don't get that our language was invented by humans and the words have clear definitions? What? God allowed us to invent the word "omnipotent" whilst maintaining that only he knows the true definition?

Are you joking?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The main issue I have with the guy is lack of love, lack of compassion and incredibly poor timing. I think he is also being presumptuous. None of these are sound doctrine.

Why not? You should point out where he is being un-Christian. The OT and even Jesus refers to a vengeful God. Just because he is interpreting the scriptures differently from you does not make him any less a Christian.

No true scotsman here!

Exactly

As for Christian bashing, thats exactly what it is and you know it!

If by Christian bashing, I am pointing out why dogmatic belief in scripture is dangerous then, yes, I do know it.

 

[evo]

Just accidentally deleted lost my entire response! Bastard. A shame - it was gold ;D I'll give the short version.

I'm not a Freudian (neo or otherwise), and such terms have little explanatory value for me. However emotion and self are two constructs that are close to my (research) heart, and talk of emotion in terms of ego and 'annihilating' the self, really doesn't mean much to me. Most modern emotion theory, whilst paying due homage to Ziggy (for all his faults), takes a functionalist perspective, such that all emotions serve functions.

I was refering more to the Eastern conception of ego,rather than the Freudian.

I didn't rsealise you were trained in psychology.

What is the cause of altruism? To take a stab, in cold terms, an appraisal of a situation (e.g., a person in need) which activates a response (e.g. giving) based on socially proscribed standards, acquired through socialisation, that we should help someone in need. Both stimulus and response are probably associated with emotions. Possibly the alleviation of a negative emotion associated with the stimulus is more likely to be a motivator of behaivour than the feeling good associated with response if we are looking for an the selfish act.

Yeah, fair enough.It sounds like you are talking about classical conditioning?Nonetheless the 'altruist' is still acting in self interest even though the behaviour is acquired via socialisation wouldn't you say?

 

[evo]

An omnipotent God and free will are mutually exclusive. If you can't see why, I am not sure how to spell it out any clearer.

You might enjoy this article on free-will(or lackthereof), Pantera.

He is quite a good philosopher this guy.So was his father.

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200303/?read=interview_strawson

 

[Djevv]

An omnipotent God and free will are mutually exclusive. If you can't see why, I am not sure how to spell it out any clearer.

You made that point and I answered it. I can see no reason why an omnipotent being should not limit His power to achieve his ends, just as we do.

I don't get that our language was invented by humans and the words have clear definitions? What? God allowed us to invent the word "omnipotent" whilst maintaining that only he knows the true definition?

Are you joking?

Of course God defines omnipotence! Do we know of any other beings that fit the bill? The philopsophical definition is simply a human construct. You athiests try to put God in a box. When he doesn't fit you throw out God rather than the box!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You made that point and I answered it. I can see no reason why an omnipotent being should not limit His power to achieve his ends, just as we do.

Free will that can be revoked (by an omnipotent God) is not truly free...a God that permits free will is not omnipotent (ie he cannot revoke free will).

Get it?

The whole idea of omnipotence is nonsense anyway. To paraphrase: Can God create an unmoveable stone?

Of course God defines omnipotence! Do we know of any other beings that fit the bill? The philopsophical definition is simply a human construct. You athiests try to put God in a box. When he doesn't fit you throw out God rather than the box!

Ah...but you know the mind of God? Interesting.

 

[Djevv]

Why not? You should point out where he is being un-Christian. The OT and even Jesus refers to a vengeful God. Just because he is interpreting the scriptures differently from you does not make him any less a Christian.

Did I say he wasn't a Christian, just that he made an error of judgement and scripture - such a serious error that he ought not to be in a position of authority. Jayfox gave you an answer along those lines, but you rejected it as you always do. I gave you another version and you reject that as well. Why ask if you already know the answer?

If by Christian bashing, I am pointing out why dogmatic belief in scripture is dangerous then, yes, I do know it.

Dangerous? Howso? If he was using scripture to justifiy lighting fires or killing people I might agree. You want to know my opinion of him? He belongs to 'Catch a Fire' ministries, what we Christians refer to as a para-church organisation, so he is under no real church authority. When he shoots off his mouth like this he is doing it on his own authority, not God's. In short he is a loose cannon.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Did I say he wasn't a Christian, just that he made an error of judgement and scripture - such a serious error that he ought not to be in a position of authority. Jayfox gave you an answer along those lines, but you rejected it as you always do. I gave you another version and you reject that as well. Why ask if you already know the answer?

Again you make a claim without supporting it. Where is his error in Christian doctrine? For every verse you produce that supports your position, I am sure he can produce one to support his.

Just because you and Jay assert that he is in error does not make it so.

Dangerous? Howso? If he was using scripture to justifiy lighting fires or killing people I might agree. You want to know my opinion of him? He belongs to 'Catch a Fire' ministries, what we Christians refer to as a para-church organisation, so he is under no real church authority. When he shoots off his mouth like this he is doing it on his own authority, not God's. In short he is a loose cannon.

Can't you see that this is, again, a No True Scotsman defence? Where is he being un-Christian? Most of this paragraph is your opinion, which I am sure the pastor in question would disagree with....on theological grounds.

 

[Djevv]

Free will that can be revoked (by an omnipotent God) is not truly free...a God that permits free will is not omnipotent (ie he cannot revoke free will).

Get it?

I got it a long time ago, o condescending one.

God is permitting free-will in order to achieve his ends for this present time IMO. Anyway, who decides what 'truly free' means. But Free will that doesn't bend it's self to His will will not exist in the age to come.

The whole idea of omnipotence is nonsense anyway. To paraphrase: Can God create an unmoveable stone?

Lol. I figured out how to make a square circle last night. The Bible doesn't mention immovable stones, just the rock of our salvation! Whatever floats your boat.

Ah...but you know the mind of God? Interesting.

I'll give ye chapter and verse on that one laddie ( being the true scotsman that I am):

1 Cor 2:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Djevv]

Again you make a claim without supporting it. Where is his error in Christian doctrine? For every verse you produce that supports your position, I am sure he can produce one to support his.

Of course I can! But that would require me to take your trolling effort seriously. In the past I have found that to be a complete waste of effort.

Just because you and Jay assert that he is in error does not make it so.

Can't you see that this is, again, a No True Scotsman defence? Where is he being un-Christian? Most of this paragraph is your opinion, which I am sure the pastor in question would disagree with....on theological grounds.

Yep, probably. Try to find any Christians that agree with him and give their reasons and I will have a crack! I didn't notice your pastor giving any of his Biblical reasoning.

 

[evo]

This a perfect example of Christian doublethink and dissembling to protect beliefs from scrutiny.

Of course God defines omnipotence!

Say again?

Define: verb

1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”
2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe: to define judicial functions.

etc.

So where does God set forth meaning to the word omnipotence? Which book can I go and read his final word on this?

Do we know of any other beings that fit the bill?

We don't even know this being,apparently.

The philopsophical definition is simply a human construct.

Of course it bloody is. All definitions are human constructs,that is how we converse with each other. We define what a word means,then hopefully use it correctly.

You athiests try to put God in a box.

What an absurd thing to say.

"We atheists" are trying to work with Chrisitians ever changing definitions of God and his attributes to try and discern wether it is logically possible for such a thing to exist.But whenever we demonstrate to Chrisitians,using your definitions of God the reply is something like "Hey man,stop defining our God and putting him in a box"

When he doesn't fit you throw out God rather than the box!

fine ,give us a definitive box that defines what God is so "us atheists" can examine it.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Of course I can! But that would require me to take your trolling effort seriously. In the past I have found that to be a complete waste of effort.

Yes Djevv, I am a troll :. My discussions on this thread are a testament to that. Perhaps you just dislike the implications of my posts? Perhaps it is easier to dismiss me with the badge of 'troll' than to answer the questions?

Yep, probably. Try to find any Christians that agree with him and give their reasons and I will have a crack! I didn't notice your pastor giving any of his Biblical reasoning.

He wasn't making the claim that your view is "an error of judgement and scripture". I was asking you to justify that particular statement.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

But Free will that doesn't bend it's self to His will will not exist in the age to come.

Which dictator are we referring to here?

Lol. I figured out how to make a square circle last night. The Bible doesn't mention immovable stones, just the rock of our salvation! Whatever floats your boat.

Nice deflection. Who cares what the Bible says about my question? Can an omnipotent being create an unmovable stone?

I'll give ye chapter and verse on that one laddie ( being the true scotsman that I am):

1 Cor 2:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

So where does Christ define "omnipotence"?

 

[jayfox]

Surely? Sounds like an appeal to faith to me.

And hard to prove. But a typical blanket statement of the sort that I've come to expect from Christians. I could equally posit that every society in history has contained atheists (and most have). Surely that has to mean something? Surely?

It does. It means that it is within our nature to reject God just as all of us have at times in our lives.

 

[jayfox]

What? You are going to change the meaning of a word to suit your argument?

Omnipotence, from the Latin: Omni Potens: "all power".

Every definition I have ever seen defines it as having unlimited power.

Your definition?

If God can't control the actions of something he is, by definition, not omnipotent.

What if there is no human word to define how powerful God is. What if He cannot be explained or contained by our words?